Template talk:Islam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Islam (Rated Template-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 High  This template has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Edit request on 17 August 2012

please remove the ahmadiyyahs from the tribes list (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Deontalk 02:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 February 2013

Good evening, I should like to request the inclusion of the terms "islamofacism" and "Radical Islam" in the green drop down to the right titled "Islam", at the very least under 'Other'. It's not like Wiki to cherry-pick... (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done and added Criticism of Islam as well. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 May 2013

Islam is NOT about sects/denominations as mentioned. This is completely wrong info. Syadmustafa (talk) 11:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. When making edit requests, please make your request(s) as specific as possible, in the form of "Change X to Y". --ElHef (Meep?) 12:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2014

Can someone please check why pics of pigs (Sow_with_piglet.jpg) are showing up on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_in_Islam when the same template is used and it shows up fine on other pages. The image should be (Allah-eser-green.png). Thanks.

Thanks Arjayay, but the image is still there. (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done this vandalism has been reverted and the user has been blocked. Arjayay (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

If it appears on any more pages, just purge them and they should be fixed. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of Ahmadiyya

An editor has removed the link to the article on the Ahmadiyya movement from the template. The rationale given is that the movement is not considered to be a denomination of Islam by other Muslims. The relationship between the Ahmadiyya movement and the rest of Islam seems to resemble the one between the Mormon Latter Day Saint movement and the rest of Christianity. Both self-identify as a denomination of Islam and Christianity, respectively, and both are characterised as non-Islamic and non-Christian by those who do not belong to the respective denominations. Just as the Mormon movement is linked to from the {{Christianity}} template, so it makes sense to link to the Ahmadiyya movement from this template. I am not saying that because it's done one way there, it must be done the same way here, but rather, I quote it just to point out how similar cases are being handled elsewhere on Wikipedia.

Of course, this is only based on a cursory comparison of the relationship between the denominations and their respective religions. Either way, whatever the final decision, it should be grounded on consensus, so I think that it is important that this is discussed properly. --Joshua Issac (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Opposition Just because someone claims to be a Islamic sect does not make them Islamic. Let's examine the Ahmadi position: The idea that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is not the final messenger (as Ahmadi's don't distinct between the words rasul and nabi) Prophethood (Ahmadiyya) The declaration of faith in Islam: There is no God but God and Muhammad is the final messenger of God. - The shahadah In defiance of the shahadah one cannot be called an Islamic sect. Even shias accept the first line and then say that ali is the wali. But they still accept the base. The Ahmadis undermine the first premise. Therefore, they are not an Islamic sect but a seperate religion.

The ahmadiyya sect or religion debate should not be settled by Mormon analogies rather it should be settled by the rational and empirical facts which govern the Islamic theological position. I think the matter is quite clear, objectively, and despite all analogies, the rational position tells us not to change it otherwise. (Wiki id2(talk) 15:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC))

Keep for the obvious reason that Wikipedia is not there to decide on someone's faith. This matter has been discussed a trillion times, see for example the talk pages of Ahmadiyya and Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and their archives. Maybe an FAQ page Talk:Ahmadiyya/FAQ should be created because these complaints keep on coming. Thank You.--Peaceworld 15:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Counter Wikipedia doesn't decide one's faith, I agree. Facts classify faith It is rational that on a meritocratic basis, the Ahmadiyya movement may call itself Muslim but it is too much on the fringe. An example is the Baha'i faith. They too claimed at one point that they were an Islamic sect, but eventually accepted that they might have stuff in similar but they are different in essence. An example is: Abrahamic religions. We do not say that Islam and Christainity and Judaism are the same because they worship one God. They have a common shared geographical and scriptural tradition married with political and social objectives. The Ahmadiyya is entirely different from these categories. It originated in the subcontinent and does not accept the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as a final prophet. I'm not desecrating the Ahmadiyya community, I'm trying to establish the objective fact - which is that as much as they want to be the Islamic religion the objective facts (not the Pakistani constitution or executive orders - but the rationale behind it) provides a view as to why it is not a sect but a seperate religion in it's own right. A religion which is based on the Islamic traditions as Islam is upon Juadaeo-Christian ideals - so Ahmadiyya is not a sect per se. (Wiki id2(talk) 21:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC))

  • Dear Wiki id2, in religious spheres facts are not determined by consensus'. There is a greater consensus among Muslims that "Peace be upon him" should be written after writing the name of the founder of Islam, yet we do not see Wikipedia adopting this method. There is a greater consensus that Islam is the the only true religion that exists at present, yet we do not see Judaism (which happens to be equally as "fringe" as Ahmadiyya sect in terms of numbers) declared as a false religion of today in Wikipedia articles.
  • The Bahai faith is a non-example because the members of the faith consider themselves to be non-Muslims and a completely different religion altogether. Not that it matters, I could equally turn this round and say that many Muslims and non-Muslims alike consider the religion to be a non-Abrahamic religion, yet it is considered an Abrahamic religion on Wikipedia.
  • Theologically speaking, Ahmadis carry out all the fundamentals of the Islamic faith including the Shahadah (which you mistranslated as there is no word "last" in it), the 5 daily prayers, Fasting, Charity and Pilgrimage to Mecca.
  • The only fact is that a large group of Muslims consider Ahmadi Muslims to be non-Muslims. If we suddenly started treating opinions as facts, Wikipedia would be a very different place. Thank You.--Peaceworld 08:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

No that is not true. Your mind is dogmatic regarding your first point Refutation 1: I never said Ahmadiyya is a 'false religion' Don't get reactionary. I said that Ahmadiyya is a 'seperate religion' from Islam and not a sect of Islam.
Refutation 2: Yes Muslims say that Islam is the right religion - wikipedia doesn't adopt it. should not. Because, the religious community trying to establish objective facts and wikipedia counts other religions in trying to establish the truth. But within the Islamic community and those who study Islam, there is an agreement on the objective facts on what makes a Muslim
Refutation 3: I never ever said that word "fringe" referring to ahmadiyya' in the derogatory sense. Do not compare Ahmadis to Judaism on the basis of small numbers - the fact that you do actually suggests you tacitly acknowledge the fact that Ahmadis are a seperate religion from Islam.
Refutation 4: I do not hate Ahmadis, in fact I have met many educated ones at events of the Pakistani community and PTI in Oxford. But the objective reality is that it is difficult to objectively classify Ahmadis as Muslims given the fact that they're position the the Prophet Muhammad is not a final prophet is not supported
Refutation 5: You compare "pbuh" to not being used. Again that is a matter to those external to the community and different for those within. A Christian would not expect me to cross and nor would I ask him to read the Kalim; the fact that you are raising up these childish points suggests you are not interested in actual intellectual debate but only making the selective points that you want to do so.
Your second point is utterly false: the majority of scholarly consensus regards Islam as an Abrahamic religion. Wikipedia is not based on opinion. It is based on facts true. But the simple reality is that the scholarly consensus exists that the Ahmadis are not a sect of Islam because they do not consider the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to be the final messenger of God. Ahmadiyya do have the right to call themselves an religion, but they do not have the right to consider themselves a sect of the religion because they do not follow the main premise which underpin it. That is an objective fact. (Wiki id2(talk) 21:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC))

  • I never said that you said that Ahmadiyya was a false religion. Your argument is that because Ahmadis are smaller in number & that there is a consensus (although you will find many non-Ahmadi Muslims who do consider Ahmadis to be Muslims e.g. 40% of Bangladeshi Muslims recognize Ahmadis as Muslims, similarly 25% Thailand, 16% Malaysia & 12% Indonesia) among Muslims, therefore Ahmadis should be regarded as non-Muslims. I gave you 2 of 100s of examples, one of which was that there is a consensus among Muslims that Islam is the only correct religion alive today. In views of this, every small faith should be regarded as false. Hence I gave an example of Judaism, although I could have given any other faith that is equal or less in terms of the number than Ahmadis. But then you cherry pick: "wikipedia counts other religions in trying to establish the truth". Why just religions, why not other sects?
  • There is no universal agreement "on the objective facts on what makes a Muslim". There are many Shia Imams who have passed fatwas against Sunnis and Sunni Imams who have passed fatwas against Shias. Besides, you cannot just exclude the Ahmadiyya community from the "Islamic community and those who study Islam". Surely, their view counts. Do Sunnis and Shias together hold a monopoly over the definition of a Muslim?
  • "Your second point is utterly false: majority of scholarly consensus regards Islam as an Abrahamic religion". My point was about Bahai faith...
  • I said it before and I say it again, the fact that Ahmadi Muslims self-identify as Muslims is enough of a reason for them to be recognized as such The fact that you just said that "they do not have the right to consider themselves a sect of the religion" shows us your discriminatory views. According to you even the Ahmadis don't have a right to call themselves Muslims. Enough said, I see no need to discuss further. Good day.--Peaceworld 07:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The surveys do not matter in who makes a Muslim. I'm not talking about consensus. I'm on about scholarly consensus - the overwhelming majority of Sunni and Shia scholars accept the other as Muslims. Only a small minority dehumanise sunni or shia. The overwhelming majority accept that sunnis, shias and even IBADIS are Muslims. There is no such scholarly consensus of a wide variety of Imams such as Al-Azhar or even Qom scholars or Islamic states on whether the Ahmadis are a Islamic sect or not.
(Wiki id2(talk) 14:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC))

1. When you quote me!!! Quote what I said completely!!!! I said Ahmadis should not call themselves Muslims because they do not follow the premise which underpins the religion. I even highlighted it in bold. Don't quote selectively in order to portray me as a bigot. I even said that "I respect the ahmadiyya community" I have said they should "not be persecuted" etc. You said about me: "According to you the ahmadiyya do not have the right to call themselves Muslims". They do not lose the right to call themselves because they are Ahmadiyya. 'They do not have the right to self identifcation (just as any other sect would not) because they do not follow the premises which underpin Islam. Don't try to spin doctor what I say.'

  • We are here for facts. Wikipedia is objective.
  • The reality is that even in Pakistan - Ahmadiyya is not a sect it is a religion in its own right. Persecuted yes. Persecution is wrong completely. But it is considered to be not a sect but instead a completely seperate religion. The documentation reflects this.
  • If Stalin self-identified as a democrat as per the constitution of the USSR, it doesn't make him one. Wikipedia is about rationale not about self identification. Just because Ahmadis call themselves Muslims doesn't make them objectively so.
  • The objective fact stands that it is a part of Islam that the Prophet Muhammad is the final prophet. Whether a person believes it to be true or not is another matter. But that is the Islamic position. The Ahmadiyya' religion is not recognising the Prophet Muhammad as the final prophet. Therefore it cannot be considered a sect.

This is not about religious views or faith views. It is certainly not about self-identification. It is the rational and empirical reality which is that the Ahmadiyya sect does not adhere to the most fundamental part of Islamic principles therefore it cannot be considered an Islamic sect. (Wiki id2(talk) 14:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC))

Creative Commons License